Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MorleyDev]

So the excuse is...they accidentally drew their pistol, disengaged the safety, and fired it? And that somehow isn't an admission of gross incompetence leading to at best a criminal charge of manslaughter?

[Dostoevsky]

The part where he was pulled over because he had an air freshener hanging from his rear view mirror tells you they were looking for a reason to harass him. And tasers aren't known for going through glass like a bullet would, so that was obviously a lie as well. But there's a 0% chance anything will come of it in this country.

MN law on windshield obstructions is pretty darn bad, unfortunately, more or less giving police free reign for excuses to DWB pull overs.

At the very least, the video does explain why a taser would hypothetically be used here - standing at the side of the car, with the car door open, basically holding the gun 1-2 feet away from the person. Now as to how a 26-year vet could make that mistake, given that tasers are designed to look & feel different from pistols, is... bad.

[nenjin]

Call it what it is: a lie.

https://www.startribune.com/police-officer-who-fatally-shot-daunte-wright-is-identified-as-26-year-veteran-kimberly-potter/600045243/

Among her duties during her tenure with the Brooklyn Center Police Department has been serving on the force's negotiation team.

Brian Peters, head of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, said Potter was working Sunday as a field training officer, training a new officer.

26 year veteran, with experience in force negotiation AND was training that day.....made a mistake a week-old rookie would have, in a non-confrontational situation. For a guy who had arrest warrants for parking tickets and pot.

The taser is a straight up lie.

edit

Apparently she was caught on camera saying "OMG, I just shot that guy." Which lends credence to the idea it was an actual mistake. Then again, if we can't trust a 26 year veteran of the force to not shoot first and look at their weapon later.....who exactly are we supposed to trust?

[Doomblade187]

So the excuse is...they accidentally drew their pistol, disengaged the safety, and fired it? And that somehow isn't an admission of gross incompetence leading to at best a criminal charge of manslaughter?

As far as I am aware, most US police use Glock brand pistols, which don't have a safety in the traditional sense. You can just draw and shoot, one reason they're popular among cops.

[Cthulhu]

She's being charged with second degree manslaughter, the negligent homicide equivalent for Minnesota.  Which is probably the best move; it's hard enough to punish cops without going for the three-pointer.   A little worried Chauvin will get off for that.

Yes, she was using a glock, but I've seen the video and she's got the gun out and leveled for more than enough time to realize it's not a hollow piece of plastic.  So I don't know. 

[Bumber]

in a non-confrontational situation.

It becomes a bit confrontational once you break free of the officers trying to cuff you and climb back into your vehicle.

For a guy who had arrest warrants for parking tickets and pot.

Or carrying a pistol without a permit and fleeing the police. Same difference, right? Doesn't completely change the risk evaluation of the situation or anything.

[feelotraveller]

in a non-confrontational situation.

It becomes a bit confrontational once you break free of the officers trying to cuff you and climb back into your vehicle.

For a guy who had arrest warrants for parking tickets and pot.

Or carrying a pistol without a permit and fleeing the police. Same difference, right? Doesn't completely change the risk evaluation of the situation or anything.

Doesn't change it one bit.  The greatest risk in the situation remains the psycho trigger-happy cop(s).  And unlike the suspect they actively choose the confrontation.

[Cthulhu]

It actually does.  Specifically:  If you pull up a record that suggests a violent confrontation, don't engage.  Take down information, notify HQ, formulate a plan instead of deliberately initiating an encounter we all know frequently ends in somebody dead.

Also, don't require a permit to carry a pistol.  Shall not be infringed. 

In general, decriminalize a gigantic laundry list of things that were criminalized to give an excuse for confrontations like this.  Including the obscured windshield law.  So many of these cases everybody argues over whether or not the officers were justified using force when it's bullshit they pulled him over in the first place.

[feelotraveller]

If you pull up a record that suggests a violent confrontation, don't engage.

I'm pretty sure that's why he might have been climbing back into the vehicle and perhaps trying to flee.

(Not that I disagree with any of the rest of what you are saying.)

[Cthulhu]

I mean the police should not have engaged.  For multiple reasons, including the law is bullshit and exists to give pretense for stops like this.  They should never have pulled him over in the first place.

[nenjin]

Also, just....why do they need to shoot and/or prevent fleeing the scene beyond physical restraint? You got his plates, his vin#, his ID, his home address. Unless the car is stolen, you're gonna be able to track them down. And even then they're still eminently findable.

But we've developed this idea in the US that if you flee the scene (and you're black) there is no other alternative: your life is now forfeit because "no black criminal should escape no matter what they're guilty of."

Christ there are even rules in place to NOT engage in high speed pursuits because of the potential loss of life and property damage. I guess those concerns are only valid once you're in your car though. If you're not in your car and you're black then fuck the loss of life, you're a dead man.

It becomes a bit confrontational once you break free of the officers trying to cuff you and climb back into your vehicle.

Did he draw on officers? Assault them with a weapon? No. To me that isn't confrontational. Cops decided to escalate it, he did not. And again, a 26 year veteran with experience in use of force negotiations immediately went with the nuclear option, mistaken draw or not. That's the best we can hope for? Garbage.

Or carrying a pistol without a permit and fleeing the police. Same difference, right? Doesn't completely change the risk evaluation of the situation or anything.

That's not what they pulled him over for, and as pointed out, if they knew that it should have changed their approach.

[Iduno]

edit: misread

[Bumber]

In general, decriminalize a gigantic laundry list of things that were criminalized to give an excuse for confrontations like this.  Including the obscured windshield law.  So many of these cases everybody argues over whether or not the officers were justified using force when it's bullshit they pulled him over in the first place.

They pulled the Oklahoma City bomber over for using an expired license plate, then arrested him for carrying a concealed weapon. Just saying.

Also, don't require a permit to carry a pistol.  Shall not be infringed.

Looking deeper into it, it looks like the reason he wasn't allowed to carry a pistol was that he allegedly choked and attempted to rob a woman at gunpoint.

Also, just....why do they need to shoot and/or prevent fleeing the scene beyond physical restraint? You got his plates, his vin#, his ID, his home address. Unless the car is stolen, you're gonna be able to track them down. And even then they're still eminently findable.

Because nothing ever goes wrong when the cops show up at someone's door. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Did he draw on officers? Assault them with a weapon? No. To me that isn't confrontational.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. The cops can't mind read what he was planning to do once he got in the car. Does he keep his pistol there? Was he going to speed off, potentially endangering others? If he had been tased, as seemed to be the intent, that would have decreased the risk of either of those threats.

[MorleyDev]

If he sped off, you pursue and call in support. You coral and co-ordinate to control their movement and drive them away from residential areas and box them in. You restrict and contain and do your damdest to force a deesculatation and bring them in alive. If a person produces a weapon, you retreat to a safe distance, establish a perimeter and call in co-ordinated support to contain them and bring them in. This is the job of a police force, not the street execution of every possible threat.

A fundamental problem is American police are trained to what basically amounts to shoot first, rather than to seek to constrain and contain, and are actively confrontational in their treatment of both suspects and victims, basically ensuring an escalation of force that results in conflict and losses of life. By treating everyone as a high risk target, rather than a proportionate risk, you guarantee excess and unneeded deaths. A big cultural shift that needs to happen in US policing is one of prioritizing de-escalation over confrontation and community involvement over us-vs-them mentality.

[Frumple]

Yeah, I'm not buying that tasing was the intent, anyway. The excuse, obviously enough, but as we've learned over the last few decades/couple centuries, over and over and over again, there's precious few folks' words that count for less than a cop's, what with how there's basically no one that faces less consequence for lying. Don't think anyone capable of pattern recognition is going to buy a 25 year vet managed to somehow fuck up so badly as to make that "mistake", either.